Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + + +
→Mass section revision: reply
Now you've decided you don't like it, and instead of asking me to fix it, or even saying simply "thanks, but no thanks", you dismiss the whole thing as "claptrap". Excuse me, but that is incredibly rude.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
Now you've decided you don't like it, and instead of asking me to fix it, or even saying simply "thanks, but no thanks", you dismiss the whole thing as "claptrap". Excuse me, but that is incredibly rude.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:51, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
:You're right. I was rude, and I apologize.
:That said, you deleted my clearer explanation and obscured the fact that the nonsensical "relativistic mass" was taught and believed by physicists for more than a generation. E=mc<small>2</small>, which is still repeated and taught in Pavlovian manner by relativists, is simply false as a general equality. You also inserted non-scientific justification like "language" and "natural" that have no place in a matter of physical observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
== "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote ==
== "Beautiful, but not robust" Quote ==